COSENT OR OBJECT - Exit interviews

[Sarah]

Hi @reeflings

Making this post as a member, who needs validation on how to deal with this issue I have on my mind

We have been saying for quite a while now that we would do exit interviews with the people who left the project. Originally, this was to be done by team conflict, because we thought it was important to get more of an understanding about what might have happened if people left over potential conflicts. We thought it was important to get insight into the places we got stuck so that we could work through them.

We first talked about this in 2023, but ended up not doing that, for obvious crazy-buzy reasons

I would quite like to revive that idea, because I really think it is important, especially in the current context of having trouble to consolidate and expand the group. It was also mentioned by some associate members who didn’t understand why we weren’t doing that.

I think the idea is to have any feedback that we could get, and do it in an open-ended way.
But I also see several points that would be interesting to enquire about:

• ⁠group dynamics. Did people feel ill at ease at times? Was their problems in the way we worked and interacted together? What do they think needs attention?
• ⁠building related questions. Did exploring members leave over building-related issues in general? Was apartment choice a problem? What is the minimal info that could help that? Were there things that could have made the uncertainty more comfortable to deal with (about common spaces for instance)?
• ⁠Recruitment and onboarding process. How did people feel through their onboarding? Did it have an impact on their decision to stay or not? What do they think they would have needed?

So this would be interesting for team conflict management, but I also think it to be very relevant for the other teams of the grouping “Team Community”, ie team community life (if we go through with my proposal- see my post) and team R&O.

My proposal would be that Team Community takes responsibility for making it happen, and then feeds back the relevant info to the group and other teams. Because the info is most relevant to team community life and team R and O, it would be best if people from these teams took the lead on this.
For now @ChrisM and I are happy to step in, but let us know if you would also be interested…

All feedback welcome. If there are no objections to this, say by Wednesday, we will implement this idea (it is a bit urgent re feedback on common spaces).
And if there are other points you would like to learn about, let us know!

[els]

hi @Sarah : I think that’s a great idea. One question: you are focussing on associates who didn’t take the decision to become full members, or also on exploring members who didn’t take the decision to become associate members?

[Sarah]

Both!

[alberto]

Consent.

[els]

after reading some more messages today (choosing our battles,…) and other things that have been raised (burn-outs), i think i have a need for

• a kind of backlog, with all things we need to tackle the coming months (and review that every now and then as months pass by, to add new tasks and remove done tasks).
• prioritize than those things that are in our backlog, and have it validated by the full members to create awareness/understanding.
• look who can (wants to/ and knows how to) work on the most prior items for the near future

As long as i don’t have a view on the tasks we need to tackle the coming months (and maybe others do have a clear view on that), i find it difficult to judge whether this is more or less prior than the other work we have coming and/or if there are people left to be working on this.

I have a concern that if we don’t focus on the most important tasks (and i don’t say this is not one of them) we’re

• going to burn ourselves up
• going to take more time to progress (and more time means more money)

[Sarah]

Hi Els,
Thanks for sharing that.

I had the same thought when writing this post, and I have the same concern. And reading your message makes me question my choices even more!

At the same time, this will always fall down the priority list, and that’s what happened up to now actually… So I thought that was something that needed to be revisited, especially as understanding why people leave might help us adapt to have people staying! Hence loosing less time and money in the end!

But I’m all for a clear overview, and creating a shared awareness, I think it’s a very good idea… Not sure we can foresee everything though, but we can try!

How do you see us going from here?

The thing that I see is that now, over the next few weeks may be a good time to do it because there is actually less going on than when the year starts again…
And if we are going to adapt, it should be now…
So I wonder if we could go ahead with this, while also working on a backlog, and clarifying things? And if we decide we let it go later, then we let it go?
I’m worried there might be a missed opportunity otherwise…
Or maybe we look for other people to do it?
Also ok to hear it if you think you really want to object on this.

Also, how should we go about creating that overview?
There used to be an overall backlog document actually, I’m not sure if maybe @Lee still uses that. Maybe it’s just a matter of making it more visible?

[els]

@Sarah

How do you see us going from here?

i would like if there are any other objections/concerns, if all of the other members are in favor of this, i can live with that.
i would like to know from @Lee what the urgent tasks are for the coming time and if you/chris are/can be/want to be involved in that. If not, I don’t see a problem.
If needed, it maybe can be discussed in the coordinator’s meeting, but not sure this is needed…

@Sarah

Also ok to hear it if you think you really want to object on this.

And don’t get me wrong, I definately do think it can have an added value, make things obvious that we don’t (want to) see, my concern is related to the load of work, and what maria said ‘will people be absolutely open/comfortable to share what their reasons are / do people know it themselves, maybe it’s just ‘it doesn’t feel right’ but cannot put their finger on what exactly it is…’
but to answer your question: no objection from my part. (i would start though with the associates not becoming full members and leave the ‘exploring not becoming associates’ out for now)

[Lee]

As for the overview on the priorities for the next months: this is the main agenda topic for next week’s Coordination Group’s meeting.

As for the exit interviews I am torn between going with your wisdom and doing what you think is needed, and expressing an objection on the basis of several people flirting with a burn-out and a to do list that is veeery long.

I don’t have the heart to object, but if this goes forward I would like it if we could go about this in a more targeted way.

For the Exploring Members who decide they are not going forward, first of all we know that this is a general phenomenon. Almost everybody likes the idea of a sustainable cohousing, but then the next day all sorts of concerns come up, like lack of time or financial means not matching.

In the current stage it’s also relatively clear that knowing where the units are located and how much they cost is an essential piece of information that is missing. For those for whom there’s another reason, I think it could be a simple to make sure their buddy asks the question.

For the Associate Members I would recommend you first make a list of all Associate Members who decided not to join in the last 12 months. In my view what we see happening is that people “fall in love” with our project, and during that honeymoon phase lose sight of the obstacle that will stand in the way to becoming a Full Member.

What I think you’ll find out is that the big majority falls in the following categories:

• Financial reasons

• Financial risk (unlimited liability)

• Not enough time

• Not the right moment

• Not the right place

For the occasional mysterious drop-out, by all means if someone has the time to go for a coffee with them, let’s do that, but then I think it’s also very important to honour our “openess” principle and make sure that everybody knows what has been said (to avoid a potentially toxic dynamic of post-exit frustrations that can’t be shared with the entire group).

So all that said, I am strongly leaning towards objecting to this. We have a shitload of work to do and not enough people to get it done. Next to that there is the non-negligible concern about emotional hygiene and taking care of our group’s dynamics. So I would really like to ask to prioritise all the energy we have for our own group first, and after that, to go with a “minimum input maximum output” philosophy, i.e. don’t over-formalise things and only invest time in the few households where we are not quite sure what was going on.

[mieke]

I consent. I really believe in the added value of exit interviews so I would strongly encourage to make this happen, if it is possible to combine with our other priorities of course. I would first focus on associate members and not do this with exploring members.
As we all discuss with people one-on-one, I am aware of some of the reasons that played a role in why some people left, and I think we should create some kind of safe space to talk about these things, so that we can only grow stronger.

[els]

hi @Sarah , looking at the urgent topics for the coming time, i don’t see that you or chris are much involved in that, so also in favor for the exit interviews. Thanks for bringing that up.

[ChrisM]

@Lee

I don’t have the heart to object

@Lee

So all that said, I am strongly leaning towards objecting to this

It’s not clear to me if you are actually objecting or not. This is a proposal, so it can be adapted based on members’ concerns. One concern that has been raised is that we don’t have time for this. The adaption is to take a minimum effort approach to it. Another concern is that it isn’t a priority; however, a number of members think that establishing why households choose to stay or leave at this crucial stage in the project is of the highest priority. Therefore, this concern would only be relevant to the proposal if it’s a formal objection. Yet another concern is that it’s a waste of time because we already know why some people leave and others stay, but this is just guesswork, and the only way we’ll know for sure is by actually asking them. It’s quite possible that there are elements of our onboarding process or communication style that are affecting new members’ decisions, and if that’s the case, it’s in our interest to find out and potentially change. So if you don’t object, we’ll take on board all the points that people have mentioned above (including your own) to either adapt the proposal and move forward, or let it go…

[Lee]

The essence of my concern is here:

@Lee

I’m all for identifying tensions and challenges, but I would like to direct the little energy that we have left inward, to dialogue and care for each other, rather than creating an extra task and investing time and energy in people who would have left anyway.

(CONSENT OR OBJECT - Team community life mandate - #2 by Lee)

It’s your energy and it’s your wisdom, so you should go ahead in the way that seems good to you.